- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1681 WP No. 100656 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.100656 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SADASHIV S/O. BHIMAPPA ADAHALLI, AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR HBC COLONY, ATHANI-591304, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SURESH S/O. BHIMAPPA ADAHALLI, AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HALYAL ROAD, NEAR KEB, ATHANI-591304, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. ISHWAR S/O. BHIMAPPA ADAHALLI, AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR HBC COLONY, VIKRAMPUR, ATHANI-591304, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. BHIMAPPA ADAHALLI, AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND TRADE, R/O. KUMBHAR GALLI, ATHANI-591304, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SHANTAVEER S/O. BHIMAPPA ADAHALLI, AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. HALIYAL ROAD, BESIDE PRABHU Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1681 WP No. 100656 of 2026 AUTOMOBILES, ATHANI-591304, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SHIVAPAD S/O. BHIMAPPA ADAHALLI, AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND TRADE, R/O. HALIYAL ROAD, TOGARIMATTI STEEL MERCHANT, ATHANI-591304, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. ISHWAR MURKATNAL, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUDALAGI-591312, TQ. GOKAK, NOW MUDALAGI, DIST. BELAGAVI, NOW R/AT. HALIYAL ROAD, OPPOSITE MADARASA, ATHANI-591304, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.S. KANAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. PRASHANT F.GOUDAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. AKSHAY KATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. S.T. MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2026 PASSED ON IA NO.2 IN RA NO.10066/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI TO SIT AT ATHANI, VIDE ANNEXURE - A RESPECTIVELY. II. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2026 PASSED ON IA NO.3 IN RA NO.10066/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI TO SIT AT ATHANI, VIDE ANNEXURE - B RESPECTIVELY. III. ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION WHICH THIS HON’BLE DEEMS FIT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1681 WP No. 100656 of 2026 CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed on IA No.2 in RA No.10066/2024 dated 19.01.2026 by the XI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Athani, the defendant Nos. 4, 6 and 7 are before this Court. 2. Respondent No.1 herein had filed a suit for partition. In that, the siblings, father and mother were arrayed as defendants. The said suit came to be dismissed. Against that, RA No.10066/2024 is filed. According to the petitioners, defendant No.2/mother had executed a Will dated 30.10.1996 bequeathing the properties to the petitioners and defendant No.5. During the pendency of the appeal, the mother died on 12.02.2024. Then, a memo was filed to treat defendants No.3 to 8 as legal representatives of the deceased Basavva. Accordingly, the said memo was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed IA No.2 to recall the order passed on the memo treating the defendants as LRs of deceased Basavva and also IA No.3 was filed to treat these petitioners - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1681 WP No. 100656 of 2026 as LRs, who are representing the estate of the deceased Basavva. The said application came to be dismissed by the appellate Court. While dismissing the application, the appellate Court has observed that, according to defendant No.5, the deceased Basavva had cancelled the earlier Will dated 30.10.1996 on 15.02.2020 and thereafter, she had executed a Will dated 05.03.2020 in favour of defendant No.5. In respect of RS No.1238/2A/1, measuring 1 acre 19 guntas, based on the Will dated 05.03.2020 and according to defendant No.5, he is the owner and in possession of the property bearing RS No.1238/2A/1 to the extent of 1 acre 19 guntas. Considering all these facts, the appellate Court observed that IA is not maintainable and accordingly, the appellate Court had refused to recall the order passed on IA No.2 and dismissed IA No.3 that is filed by the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the mother had executed a Will in favour of defendant Nos. 4 to 7. The petitioners before this Court are defendant No.4, 6 and 7. According to defendant No.5, the Will dated 30.10.1996 is cancelled and another Will is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1681 WP No. 100656 of 2026 executed in the year 2020 and he is in possession of the property. It is submitted by the learned counsel that as contemplated under Order XXII Rule 5 of CPC, the appellate Court is bound to conduct a summary enquiry and decide, who are the legal heirs representing the estate of the deceased in the light of the Will executed by the mother. It is submitted that, without conducting any enquiry, the appellate Court dismissed the application. It is submitted that who has to succeed to the property of the deceased based on the Will, has to be decided by filing a separate suit by defendant Nos.4, 6 and 7 and defendant No.5. This aspect will not be decided in this suit. He has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (D) Through Lrs. Vs. Shyam Lal Chauhan and Others1, wherein paragraph-10 reads thus: “ 10. The only purpose of substitution is the continuation of the case. The substitution as LR in a case by itself will not give any title in favour of the person so substituted. It only confers the right to represent the estate of the deceased in the pending proceedings. In Jaladi Suguna v. Satya Sai Central Trust, (2008) 8 SCC 521 this limited right was explained as follows: 1 2024 SCC Online SC 683 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1681 WP No. 100656 of 2026 “15. Filing an application to bring the legal representatives on record, does not amount to bringing the legal representatives on record. When an LR application is filed, the court should consider it and decide whether the persons named therein as the legal representatives, should be brought on record to represent the estate of the deceased. Until such decision by the court, the persons claiming to be the legal representatives have no right to represent the estate of the deceased, nor prosecute or defend the case. If there is a dispute as to who is the legal representative, a decision should be rendered on such dispute. Only when the question of legal representative is determined by the court and such legal representative is brought on record, can it be said that the estate of the deceased is represented. The determination as to who is the legal representative under Order 22 Rule 5 will of course be for the limited purpose of representation of the estate of the deceased, for adjudication of that case. Such determination for such limited purpose will not confer on the person held to be the legal representative, any right to the property which is the subject-matter of the suit, vis-à-vis other rival claimants to the estate of the deceased.” 4. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, according to the petitioners, for the limited purpose of representing the estate of the deceased, the Court has to consider the application by conducting a summary enquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 of CPC. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.5 submits that the appellate Court had rightly considered the memo and taken all the defendants as LRs of the deceased - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1681 WP No. 100656 of 2026 Basavva. Now, in view of the dispute raised by the parties, with regard to the Will of the year 1996 and the subsequent Will of the year 2020, the same cannot be decided in summary proceedings under Order XXII Rule 5 of CPC. It is submitted that the appellate Court had rightly considered this aspect and dismissed the application. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. In this case, the father, mother, and the children are the parties to the suit. One of the brothers filed the suit for partition. His suit came to be dismissed. According to three of the brothers, i.e. the petitioners herein, the mother had executed a Will in their favour and also in favour of another brother i.e. defendant No.5. According to defendant No.5, the Will dated 30.10.1996 was cancelled and another Will was executed in the year 2020. The instant suit is one for partition. According to the plaintiffs, the property of the deceased is a joint family property. According to the petitioners herein and defendant No.5, it is a self-acquired property of the mother and she had executed the Will. In this factual backdrop, the appellate Court - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1681 WP No. 100656 of 2026 has to decide whether the property is a self-acquired property of the defendant No.2 or whether it is a joint family property. 7. The object of enquiry under Order XXII of CPC is only to ensure the representation of the estate, not to decide who exclusively inherits the property. As long as the estate is sufficiently represented, the requirement of Order XXII Rule 5 of CPC is satisfied. The petitioners through this IA are effectively asking the Court to accept the Will as genuine and exclude other heirs. This is impermissible at this stage. The claim for exclusive representation based on a disputed Will cannot be entertained at the stage of substitution. The genuineness and validity or the cancellation of the Will is a matter for trial and cannot be adjudicated in a summary enquiry, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the suit is filed seeking partition. When all the LRs are on record and the Court basing on the memo has already passed an order treating all of them as LRs of the deceased, there is no reason to recall that order. 8. As far as the contention of the petitioners that a separate suit needs to be filed is concerned, this Court is not - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1681 WP No. 100656 of 2026 able to appreciate the said submission. In a comprehensive suit for partition, whether it is a plaintiff or defendant, the rights of the parties have to be decided by the Court. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners nor any reasons to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is dismissed. ii) All I.A.s in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI JTR CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35